Thanks for posting the report. Couple of concerns
Post# of 56324
Posted On: 10/16/2014 8:00:20 AM
Thanks for posting the report. Couple of concerns/questions that I would appreciate feedback from the group.
1 - Page 6 Description of Site states the proposed facility is 25,000sqft. I was of the understanding that buildings 1 and 2 on site 1 would be within the scope of growing/drying/storing such that the total square feet between these two buildings would be in excess of 80,000sqft. The report states the other 2 buildings are for admin and equipment storage - doesn't make sense to me to have built ~60,000sqft facility and not have this part of the grow operation.
2 - Page 19 states CEN built a scaled-down prototype of the growing pod and the HC team was unable to inspect against the division 3 security requirements. This is the most concerning aspect of the report. If CEN notified HC that they were ready for inspection back in April, how do they only have a prototype grow pod (that doesn't meet the requirements) and not the real thing ready to go? With a re-inspection now required, are they now back in line and waiting another 3 months for re-inspection? Very frustrating.
I can understand the first 2 minor findings - easily corrected items that almost all types of formal audits uncover. No big deal. The grow room, though, I see as a major mis-calculation by management to schedule an audit without having the real thing in place.
Regards,
-kbulldog.
1 - Page 6 Description of Site states the proposed facility is 25,000sqft. I was of the understanding that buildings 1 and 2 on site 1 would be within the scope of growing/drying/storing such that the total square feet between these two buildings would be in excess of 80,000sqft. The report states the other 2 buildings are for admin and equipment storage - doesn't make sense to me to have built ~60,000sqft facility and not have this part of the grow operation.
2 - Page 19 states CEN built a scaled-down prototype of the growing pod and the HC team was unable to inspect against the division 3 security requirements. This is the most concerning aspect of the report. If CEN notified HC that they were ready for inspection back in April, how do they only have a prototype grow pod (that doesn't meet the requirements) and not the real thing ready to go? With a re-inspection now required, are they now back in line and waiting another 3 months for re-inspection? Very frustrating.
I can understand the first 2 minor findings - easily corrected items that almost all types of formal audits uncover. No big deal. The grow room, though, I see as a major mis-calculation by management to schedule an audit without having the real thing in place.
Regards,
-kbulldog.
(0)
(0)